Harley Man

Brown Bomber

A FOX reporter interviews a FOX freelancer on the day of the attacks. I don't want to influence your judgement so I wan't comment on it until after people have watched the video.

If you watch nothing else at least watch 1:30 - 1:40 :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hJhmiWZSY

And then watch this analysis of what's going on in the background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3qa1PbBf-o

Strange stuff.

iPlop

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A FOX reporter interviews a FOX freelancer on the day of the attacks. I don't want to influence your judgement so I wan't comment on it until after people have watched the video.

If you watch nothing else at least watch 1:30 - 1:40 :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hJhmiWZSY

And then watch this analysis of what's going on in the background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3qa1PbBf-o

Strange stuff.

Yeah I saw that before ,he's an actor and was paid to say "mostly due to structural failure" ,there was a big write up about him on another website, I'll see can I find it.

CiaranMT

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And then watch this analysis of what's going on in the background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3qa1PbBf-o

Strange stuff.

Strange how? They look like FBI agents. That much is clear.

His first analysis of the interview is flimsy, to say the least. How does he know that the reporter gets pissed off? Looks to me like the reporter simply looks back to the camera.

The 2nd MIB is asked about his role. Of course the reporter doesn't know him, but he is aware of what they are doing on the street, hence the question. Now it seems reasonable that the agent cannot divulge his role purely for security reasons.

This CTer seems convinced that the reporter and the agent are whispering something to one another. There's clearly nothing being said.

CTer seems to be from cloud cuckoo land, sticking in imaginary conversations where there are none.

Earpieces between FBI and reporters? Seriously? It couldn't just be a coincidence that the reporter is getting info from his crew, while at the same time the FBI are co-ordinating movements? That's not unreasonable.

Yoghurt? What's the point of mentioning that he's possibly eating?

Ha. Now he thinks the man is acting. This interview is happening literally right after the attacks. It's far more likely that the adrenalin in the freelancer is coursing through the veins. You think he's naturally going to be calm and composed when asked about a massive event like that? You think it's going to be easy for him to gather his thoughts?

Claiming now that the reporter is trying to paint a picture of evidence. He saw a piece of a plane, I don't see how reporting this can be underhanded?

Oh, wait, hold on. Here we go:

Mossad Truck Bombs.

False Flag.

Zionist Propoganda.

Fox owned by Jews.

Enemies of Israel.

I'm guessing that Leventhal is supposedly Jewish too?

The whole thing is completely one-eyed and subjective.

I could provide an analysis of the video which shows that the reporter is secretly trying to chat up the MIB, and it would be as efficacious as this attempt.

Derp harder, BB.

CiaranMT

The Incredible Fridge wrote: »

Yeah I saw that before ,he's an actor and was paid to say "mostly due to structural failure" ,there was a big write up about him on another website, I'll see can I find it.

Looking forward to seeing this.

iPlop

CiaranMT wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing this.

I'm looking at the moment, when I find it i'll post then I'm outta this thread, I usually steer clear of 9/11 threads, they're a bloody trainwreak.

Hookah

The interviewees responses do seem a little scripted, but I'd agree with CiaranMT about the analysis of the rest of the video.

Brown Bomber

CiaranMT wrote: »

Strange how? They look like FBI agents. That much is clear.

His first analysis of the interview is flimsy, to say the least. How does he know that the reporter gets pissed off? Looks to me like the reporter simply looks back to the camera.

The 2nd MIB is asked about his role. Of course the reporter doesn't know him, but he is aware of what they are doing on the street, hence the question. Now it seems reasonable that the agent cannot divulge his role purely for security reasons.

This CTer seems convinced that the reporter and the agent are whispering something to one another. There's clearly nothing being said.

CTer seems to be from cloud cuckoo land, sticking in imaginary conversations where there are none.

Earpieces between FBI and reporters? Seriously? It couldn't just be a coincidence that the reporter is getting info from his crew, while at the same time the FBI are co-ordinating movements? That's not unreasonable.

Yoghurt? What's the point of mentioning that he's possibly eating?

Ha. Now he thinks the man is acting. This interview is happening literally right after the attacks. It's far more likely that the adrenalin in the freelancer is coursing through the veins. You think he's naturally going to be calm and composed when asked about a massive event like that? You think it's going to be easy for him to gather his thoughts?

Claiming now that the reporter is trying to paint a picture of evidence. He saw a piece of a plane, I don't see how reporting this can be underhanded?

Oh, wait, hold on. Here we go:

Mossad Truck Bombs.

False Flag.

Zionist Propoganda.

Fox owned by Jews.

Enemies of Israel.

I'm guessing that Leventhal is supposedly Jewish too?

The whole thing is completely one-eyed and subjective.

I could provide an analysis of the video which shows that the reporter is secretly trying to chat up the MIB, and it would be as efficacious as this attempt.

Derp harder, BB.

:pac::pac::pac:...Calm down.

That was a pretty hysterical response to a video some random chap made in his bedroom.

What I found strange is that "Mark Walsh" is followed into the interview by an agent of some sort. The agent is literally on his shoulder staring at him throughout and for some reason involves himself in the interview at one point.

Added to this is the fact that the interview looks suspiciously staged.

Also, Mark Walsh is/was supposedly a freelancer for FOX yet I can't find a single trace of him. Not even a facebook page.

(is "derp" a typo or some nerdy insult?)

iPlop

CiaranMT wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing this.

I have scoured the web and I can't find anything, I read it about 7 years ago when the 9/11 thing was huge, maybe the website went out of business.;)

Anyway I'm out of here before a certain poster comes in with the large stirring spoon.:pac:

Monty Burnz

That bit about 'mostly due to strutural failure, because the fire was too intense' sounds totally weird and ridiculous. The obvious explanation is that this is what he heard from other news sources, and he dropped it in there to sound informed, but I can certainly see how odd it looks if you think that the whole thing was staged.

You'd have to look back at what other stations (especially Fox, presumably) had been saying about the collapses, and when they said it, to get a bit of context for this.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I found strange is that "Mark Walsh" is followed into the interview by an agent of some sort. The agent is literally on his shoulder staring at him throughout and for some reason involves himself in the interview at one point.

I had a quick look too, but didn't try alternate spellings (Mark/Marc, Walsh/Walshe) and of course he may not be a journo anymore, or he may be a freelance photographer/cameraman etc., not a journalist. Hard enough to track down the right guy with a common enough name like that. But yeah, I found no trace of 'Mark Walsh, Journalist' in 5 minutes Googling.

CiaranMT

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:...Calm down.

That was a pretty hysterical response to a video some random chap made in his bedroom.

What I found strange is that "Mark Walsh" is followed into the interview by an agent of some sort. The agent is literally on his shoulder staring at him throughout and for some reason involves himself in the interview at one point.

Added to this is the fact that the interview looks suspiciously staged.

Also, Mark Walsh is/was supposedly a freelancer for FOX yet I can't find a single trace of him. Not even a facebook page.

(is "derp" a typo or some nerdy insult?)

You're putting this video up as some kind of evidence for the Jewish conspiracy that you're so fond of pushing, as inferred by your "I don't want to influence your judgement so I wan't comment on it until after people have watched the video." line.

How exactly does the interview look staged? Explain your perspective on this because I'm not seeing it.

33

Maybe if you googled his reall name and not his screen name.
MARK HUMPHREY as Mark Walsh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZhLPUlTAYM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff01FIoe4F0

iPlop

CiaranMT wrote: »

You're putting this video up as some kind of evidence for the Jewish conspiracy that you're so fond of pushing, as inferred by your "I don't want to influence your judgement so I wan't comment on it until after people have watched the video." line.

How exactly does the interview look staged? Explain your perspective on this because I'm not seeing it.

Where have you seen evidence of this?, it's a 9/11 thread, I know Bombers posting history in here, but he hasn't mentioned a "Jewish conspiracy".

Another thing is, the interview does look staged tbh. "obviously from structural failure" funny stuff.

CiaranMT

The Incredible Fridge wrote: »

Where have you seen evidence of this?, it's a 9/11 thread, I know Bombers posting history in here, but he hasn't mentioned a "Jewish conspiracy".

I was referring to his posting history.

iPlop

CiaranMT wrote: »

I was referring to his posting history.

Yeah but he hasn't mentioned it here, look the interview does look staged and the guy made a point of saying "obviously from structural failure". Yes that doesn't mean much but it does look fake.


I'm not going to get into my beliefs here, it's suffice to say that the official story is a fabrication to say the least, but what the truth is, who knows?

All we know is that the middle east was plundered shortly afterwards and the caspian oil pipe line was built.;)

nullzero

CiaranMT wrote: »

You're putting this video up as some kind of evidence for the Jewish conspiracy that you're so fond of pushing, as inferred by your "I don't want to influence your judgement so I wan't comment on it until after people have watched the video." line.

How exactly does the interview look staged? Explain your perspective on this because I'm not seeing it.

Would you mind if I asked you to explain the highlighted text? How this alleged conspiracy by Jewish people works and how the poster you referenced has put it forward as fact in this forum.

No level of detail will be too much, as long as you don't mind that is.

33

CiaranMT wrote: »

You're putting this video up as some kind of evidence for the Jewish conspiracy that you're so fond of pushing, as inferred by your "I don't want to influence your judgement so I wan't comment on it until after people have watched the video." line.

How exactly does the interview look staged? Explain your perspective on this because I'm not seeing it.

As said already, where oh where does he say anything about any Jewish zionist conspiracy?, maybe he will post a zionist connection, maybe he won't, but you can be sure if he does it will be done with utmost care and detail, and again you are cofusing being a Jew with being a Zionist I think.

CiaranMT wrote: »

I was referring to his posting history.

But we could have a look at your posting history and also make assumptions on your past posts, but for what?, what have past posts got to do with this thread?, nothing, so it's only a distraction away from the topic, and maybe the actor does have a zionist connection, and if so theres no better man here to show it than BB.

nullzero

33 wrote: »

As said already, where oh where does he say anything about any Jewish zionist conspiracy?, maybe he will post a zionist connection, maybe he won't, but you can be sure if he does it will be done with utmost care and detail, and again you are cofusing being a Jew with being a Zionist I think.




But we could have a look at your posting history and also make assumptions on your past posts, but for what?, what have past posts got to do with this thread?, nothing, so it's only a distraction away from the topic, and maybe the actor does have a zionist connection, and if so theres no better man here to show it than BB.

Saying all Jew's are Zionists is like say all Catholics are part of Opus Dei, it's based on a lack of knowledge of the subject.
There are an awful lot of Jew's oppossed to Zionism and Zionism uses the misconsception of Zionism = Judaism in order to have accusations of anti semitism thrown at anyone who opposes Zionism, whcih I have seen here many times.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I had a quick look too, but didn't try alternate spellings (Mark/Marc, Walsh/Walshe) and of course he may not be a journo anymore, or he may be a freelance photographer/cameraman etc., not a journalist. Hard enough to track down the right guy with a common enough name like that. But yeah, I found no trace of 'Mark Walsh, Journalist' in 5 minutes Googling.

Haha. Monty's on the turn

Brown Bomber

33 wrote: »

As said already, where oh where does he say anything about any Jewish zionist conspiracy?, maybe he will post a zionist connection, maybe he won't,

I can assure you I won't. I only have an interest in discussing the strange behaviour of the interviewee and surrounding agents. I didn't even know WTF Ciaran was talking about at first. I stopped watching the 2nd video towards the last minute or so, got bored when he start repeating himself. ADHD's a bitch

FWIW The reason I suspended giving my opinion that the interview looked staged was to avoid confirmation bias any suggestion that it was to imply my support for a Jewish conspiracy (of which I don't believe that there is) is beyond absurd on more a reflection of your own warped fantasies about me.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Haha. Monty's on the turn

Just the facts man - just the facts.

33

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Haha. Monty's on the turn

In the back of my mind I was thinking oul Monty seems to be a little more open to some topics than he has been previously, but lets not jump the gun and get our hopes up for monty to dash with a cruel blow.

Monty Burnz

33 wrote: »

In the back of my mind I was thinking oul Monty seems to be a little more open to some topics than he has been previously, but lets not jump the gun and get our hopes up for monty to dash with a cruel blow.

I'm as suspicious as the next man. I think that most CT stuff doesn't really stack up on the balance of probabilities, but if there's something odd, I want to get to the bottom of it too. If this guy can't be found, that's very odd.

Brown Bomber

I Can't argue with that Montgomery.

I'm thinking if I worked in the media and "witnessed the attacks from start to finish" I'd be pimping myself and my work out wherever I can. I'd being doing interviews left right and centre.

He talks so freely here but not a single follow up interview despite him being just at the end of a phone on call for FOX.

( and 33 that 2nd paragraph in my previous post wasn't directed towards you9

RGDATA!

just watched both of those

in the original interview, as shown on fox, harley guy's enthusiasm and diagnoses of structural failure due to intense heat definitely jumps out as odd.

the video analysis is good, and i'd accept that the guys the narrator calls MIB are obviously feds or intelligence. There also seems to be complicity between the interviewer and these MIB.

I don't know I buy that interviewer is trying to pass the MIB off as harley guy's roommates/innocent buystanders so much as being ham-fistedly discreet. I would have assumed that because these guys were that close to the scene in the first place they weren't civilians, but couldn't be identified as officers on air. I don't know why he tried to bring them into the interview either way.

Harley guy's enthusiasm may seem off, but I could actually understand that from someone who had actually witnessed what happened, however if it's true that he's not tracable now (haven't looked into that) it's definitely fishy

But what was this supposed to achieve? It's not like it's been used as the cornerstone of any "official narrative". I don't remember seeing it before. It seems unlikely that there would have been this clumsy "let's kick the offical explanation in gear" so soon after, or that even if they had pulled this off without suspicious MIB activity and with "a better actor", it would have been any real use to them.

RGDATA!

33 wrote: »

Maybe if you googled his reall name and not his screen name.
MARK HUMPHREY as Mark Walsh?

that second video grinds my gears

95% white text subtitles of the TRUTH
5% strobed ****ty comparison shots of this actor and harley guy with the same expression on their face, supposedly dead ringers

it's like as though the video maker realised that the longer he left the pics up the less convincing his argument would be

great tune whatever it is though!

Brown Bomber

RGDATA! wrote: »

But what was this supposed to achieve? It's not like it's been used as the cornerstone of any "official narrative". I don't remember seeing it before. It seems unlikely that there would have been this clumsy "let's kick the offical explanation in gear" so soon after, or that even if they had pulled this off without suspicious MIB activity and with "a better actor", it would have been any real use to them.

That's a good point. Assuming it's rehearsed for arguments sake there is virtually nothing that could have happened in that interview that could have proven an inside job. Even if "Mark Walsh" had a breakdown live on camera confessed to the hoax and was dragged off by the agents and never heard of again there will always be some kind of plausible deniability.

On the other hand people generally are able to spot a liar and 9/10 people I'd say would say that there was something off with that interview. The motive? Predictive programming. They were naming Bin Laden as chief suspect on the day of the attacks without any proof if I remember correctly.

RGDATA!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The motive? Predictive programming. They were naming Bin Laden as chief suspect on the day of the attacks without any proof if I remember correctly.

fair enough, Bin Laden was definitely nailed on chief suspect bogeyman by the evening of 9/11 if memory serves me (and his family were already been rounded up to be flown out of the US)

RGDATA!

RGDATA! wrote: »

fair enough, Bin Laden was definitely nailed on chief suspect bogeyman by the evening of 9/11 if memory serves me (and his family were already been rounded up to be flown out of the US)

You realise that the WTC was attacked before, and Bin Laden had claimed responsibility right?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

You realise that the WTC was attacked before, and Bin Laden had claimed responsibility right?

Why deny responsibility for the second, more spectacular attack then?

loldog

King Mob wrote: »

You realise that the WTC was attacked before, and Bin Laden had claimed responsibility right?

Exactly. Even I was thinking about Bin Laden after the first tower was hit. He had also been suspected of the US embassy bombings in Kenya a few years beforehand, so he was quite well known already.

.

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

Why deny responsibility for the second, more spectacular attack then?

He later did claim responsibility for it.

Though, just checked and can't find anything about Bin Laden directly claiming responsibility for the 93 bombings. I was wrong on that.

RGDATA!

King Mob wrote: »

You realise that the WTC was attacked before, and Bin Laden had claimed responsibility right?

no, I didn't realise that - link to put me out of my ignorance?

edit:
sorry you've already addressed this

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

He later did claim responsibility for it.

Though, just checked and can't find anything about Bin Laden directly claiming responsibility for the 93 bombings. I was wrong on that.

Which claim?

This one...http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

Or the one with the dodgy translation?...http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801


(it's the same vid possibly)

RGDATA!

RGDATA! wrote: »

no, I didn't realise that - link to put me out of my ignorance?

edit:
sorry you've already addressed this

Though that said the links the 93 bombing had with Al Qaeda were pretty solid.

Hookah wrote: »

Which claim?

This one...http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

Or the one with the dodgy translation?...http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801

(it's the same vid possibly)

Nope, other more clear ones as detailed and referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11_attacks

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Though that said the links the 93 bombing had with Al Qaeda were pretty solid.

Nope, other more clear ones as detailed and referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11_attacks

Clear and detailed? Nah. Not even close. Did you even check the links youeself? One of the them is dead, like OBL.

Praise for the attacks but no confession here.

– Osama bin Laden, 2004[87]

Or here

in 2004 Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.[89][90][91]

Brown Bomber

Hookah wrote: »

Which claim?

This one...http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

Or the one with the dodgy translation?...http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801


(it's the same vid possibly)

I wonder if that actor is the same "darker-skinned" CIA agent that the CIA used in making a confirmed fake bin Laden tape?

The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us
darker-skinned employees,” he said.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Clear and detailed? Nah. Not even close. Did you even check the links youeself? One of the them is dead, like OBL.

Praise for the attacks but no confession here.


Or here

Not super bothered to track down links that specifically show this only to have them ignored or dismissed as part of the conspiracy without evidence so just slapped up the wikipedia article.

My main point if you want to address it is that the WTC was attacked by Al Qaeda before, so guessing that Osama Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks wasn't a massive leap.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, other more clear ones as detailed and referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11_attacks

Ah yes, the other disputed video that appeared 4 days before the presidential election, giving Bush a boost in the polls.

So, he initially denies it, then a very dodgy video appears in which he claims responsibility, which boosts the reasons for attacking Afghanistan, then he doesn't say a word about it until he conveniently pops up to give George Bush a helping hand.

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

Ah yes, the other disputed video that appeared 4 days before the presidential election, giving Bush a boost in the polls.

So, he initially denies it, then a very dodgy video appears in which he claims responsibility, which boosts the reasons for attacking Afghanistan, then he doesn't say a word about it until he conveniently pops up to give George Bush a helping hand.

So you're saying that all the videos released of him are fake?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So you're saying that all the videos released of him are fake?

I'm saying the two videos of Osama claiming responsibility for 9/11, are ,in my opinion, fake.

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

I'm saying the two videos of Osama claiming responsibility for 9/11, are ,in my opinion, fake.

And to be super-extra clear you believe that these were also faked by the same crowd who organised 9/11 as a false flag?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

And to be super-extra clear you believe that these were also faked by the same crowd who organised 9/11 as a false flag?

Not necessarily, no. But I wouldn't discount the possibility.

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

Not necessarily, no. But I wouldn't discount the possibility.

So then if these videos were part of such a conspiracy, why was there video showing Osama Bin Laden denying the attacks allowed to be shown?

And if you don't necessarily believe there was a vast conspiracy to fake the attacks, then do you agree that the 93 attack was an Al Qaeda plot?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So then if these videos were part of such a conspiracy, why was there video showing Osama Bin Laden denying the attacks allowed to be shown?

It was issued to, and released, by Al Jazeera.

And if you don't necessarily believe there was a vast conspiracy to fake the attacks, then do you agree that the 93 attack was an Al Qaeda plot?

I agree, even if I'm not entirely clear on the relevance.

Edit. I've just re-read your sentence. To make it clear, I do believe there was a conspiracy to fake the attacks.

I don't believe that those who allegedly faked the attacks are necessarily the same people behind what I believe to be the fake videos.

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

It was issued to, and released, by Al Jazeera.

So then why has Bin Laden, or another high ranked person in the organisation not released videos stating that the ones claiming responsibility of 9/11 are faked?

Hookah wrote: »

I agree, even if I'm not entirely clear on the relevance.

Because it's my point. Since Al-Qaeda have attacked the WTC it wasn't a stretch or leap of logic to guess that it was them again.

Hookah wrote: »

Edit. I've just re-read your sentence. To make it clear, I do believe there was a conspiracy to fake the attacks.

I don't believe that those who allegedly faked the attacks are necessarily the same people behind what I believe to be the fake videos.

So who else would fake the videos and for what purpose?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So then why has Bin Laden,

Because he died at Tora Bora?

or another high ranked person in the organisation not released videos stating that the ones claiming responsibility of 9/11 are faked?

I tried googling to see if this has happened, but given the parameters, searching for "al qaeda, leader, fake, 9/11, video, claim", it might take some time to find a result, so I can't discount the possibility that this has happened and it's not broadcast as readily as these tapes.

Because it's my point. Since Al-Qaeda have attacked the WTC it wasn't a stretch or leap of logic to guess that it was them again.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility. The theory that Al Qaeda were solely responsible for the attacks is one I just don't buy, however.

So who else would fake the videos and for what purpose?

The US military industrial complex. The first to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The second to boost the popularity of George Bush, pre-election, in order to continue their diabolical plans. ?

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

Because he died at Tora Bora?

I tried googling to see if this has happened, but given the parameters, searching for "al qaeda, leader, fake, 9/11, video, claim", it might take some time to find a result, so I can't discount the possibility that this has happened and it's not broadcast as readily as these tapes.

So if they could suppress these videos, how did the first one, denying responsibility get out?

Hookah wrote: »

The US military industrial complex. The first to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The second to boost the popularity of George Bush, pre-election, in order to continue their diabolical plans. ?

Well who were they trying to justify it to?
Congress? Would they really just go to war based on a videotape?
The public? Who either on one side didn't need to see the videotape to agree with the war or the ones who never agreed with the war?
And if they did do to boost GW's popularity (already high before, during and after the election), how come Kerry's guys didn't call them out on it?
How come they didn't pull the same shtick with McCain?

You see these conspiracy theories only look like they make sense on the surface, scratch at any part of them and they start to crumble.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So if they could suppress these videos, how did the first one, denying responsibility get out?

I didn't say they were suppressed.

When I try to search for it, I get so many results concerning fake al Qaeda tapes, I can't find if such a denial has been issued.

Well who were they trying to justify it to?
Congress? Would they really just go to war based on a videotape?

They were already at war, IIRC.

The public? Who either on one side didn't need to see the videotape to agree with the war or the ones who never agreed with the war?

To keep those onside onside? To sway those who wavered?

I could a question to you in the vein of your first Twin Towers attack/Al Qaeda question.

If the US have engaged in psyops at other times, couldn't they be capable of engaging in psyops with regard to Osama's confession.

Not that that rhetorical question proves anything.

And if they did do to boost GW's popularity (already high before, during and after the election), how come Kerry's guys didn't call them out on it?

How come they didn't pull the same shtick with McCain?

How am I to decipher the byzantine reasonings of the military industrial complex?

Wasn't there a Democratic landslide for economic reasons? Not even Osama could upset that party.

Not that Obama's done much to stop the wars.

You see these conspiracy theories only look like they make sense on the surface, scratch at any part of them and they start to crumble.

Really? If you say so.

Hookah

Hookah wrote: »

I didn't say they were suppressed.

When I try to search for it, I get so many results concerning fake, al Qaeda tapes, I can't find if such a denial has been issued.

But the first one is readily available, you'd think that if such a tape existed then a lot of people would be pointing at it.

So there's really only two viable explanations:
One: such a tape does not exist. Or two: the tape is being suppressed.
If one is true, the conspiracy theory wouldn't make sense, as Al-Qaeda would love to call the US out as liars.
If two is true, the conspiracy theory wouldn't make sense, as a video tape going against their narrative has already been released and continues to be available.

Hookah wrote: »

They were already at war, IIRC.
To keep those onside onside? To sway those who wavered?

So it wasn't to convince congress then.
So why did they need to justify it to the public? The majority of the public in the US and the world being against the war had little or no baring to the war.

Hookah wrote: »

I could a question to you in the vein of your first Twin Towers/Al Qaeda question.

If the US have engaged in psyops at other times, couldn't they be capable of engaging in psyops with regard to Osama's confession.

Not that that rhetorical question proves anything.

Except I was making the point that Al Qaeda had attacked the WTC before, therefore it wasn't a crazy suggestion at the time as BB was trying to make it seem.

Hookah wrote: »

How am I to decipher the byzantine reasonings of the military industrial complex?

Yet you seem to be able to do just that when you want to speculate on their motivations.

Hookah wrote: »

Really?

Yup, pretty much.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

But the first one is readily available, you'd think that if such a tape existed then a lot of people would be pointing at it.

So there's really only two viable explanations:
One: such a tape does not exist. Or two: the tape is being suppressed.
If one is true, the conspiracy theory wouldn't make sense, as Al-Qaeda would love to call the US out as liars.
If two is true, the conspiracy theory wouldn't make sense, as a video tape going against their narrative has already been released and continues to be available.

Or 3. Maybe they're just happy to bask in the glory of taking responsibility for the attacks.

So it wasn't to convince congress then.
So why did they need to justify it to the public? The majority of the public in the US and the world being against the war had little or no baring to the war.

None of which gets away from the indications that the video itself is false.

Yet you seem to be able to do just that when you want to speculate on their motivations.

The motive seems obvious in this case.

Nor does this get away from the false indications.

Yup, pretty much.

Not to me.

There are facts which are at odds with non-conspiracy theory.

The actions of the Secret Service at Booker Elementary school, where Bush was reading to the schoolchildren on the morning of the attacks.

Or the presence of Mossad operatives in New York, on the day of the attacks.

Or the collapse of WTC7....

...to give just a few examples.

If you can properly explain these in terms of the non-conspiracy theory, you might go someway to convincing me of the crumbliness of the conspiracy theory.